Classic work once again available. Offers step-by-step guidelines for identifying and analyzing arguments. It outlines a theory of good argument to use for purposes of evaluating and constructing arguments. It contains guidelines for constructing arguments and for preparing and writing essays or briefs. Special methods for interpreting and assessing longer arguments are provided. It gives guidelines to help filter out the more reliable information from newspapers and television news. Offers an array of devices to deal with the tricks and deceits of so much of today's advertising. Helps students improve their ability to recognize, interpret, and evaluate arguments and to formulate clear, well-organized arguments themselves. Secondary and college students, debate coaches, classroom instructors, community active people.

This book addresses two questions: what makes an argument persuasive and what makes a claims that support them plausible?

This book argues that in order to be truly effective, public health must embrace a group of reasoning strategies that have traditionally been characterized as informal fallacies. It will be demonstrated that these strategies can facilitate judgements about complex public health issues in contexts of uncertainty. The book explains how scientists and lay people routinely resort to the use of these strategies during consideration of public health problems. Although these strategies are not deductively valid, they are nevertheless rationally warranted procedures. Public health professionals must have a sound understanding of these cognitive strategies in order to engage the public and achieve their public health goals. The book draws upon public health issues as wide ranging as infectious diseases, food safety and the potential impact on human health of new technologies. It examines reasoning in the context of these issues within a large-scale, questionnaire-based survey of nearly 900 members of the public in the UK. In addition, several philosophical themes run throughout the book, including the nature of uncertainty, scientific knowledge and inquiry. The complexity of many public health problems demands an approach to reasoning that cannot be accommodated satisfactorily within a general thinking skills framework. This book shows that by developing an awareness of these reasoning strategies, scientists and members of the public can have a more productive engagement with public health problems.

Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2023), July 20–24, 2023, San Francisco, USA

No detailed description available for "Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation".

This volume contains a selection of papers from the International Conference on Argumentation (Amsterdam, 2002) by prominent international scholars of argumentation theory. It provides an insightful cross-section of the current state of affairs in argumentation research. It will be of interest to all those working in the field of argumentation theory and to all scholars who are interested in recent developments in this field.

Coalescent Argumentation is based on the concept that arguments can function from agreement, rather than disagreement. To prove this idea, Gilbert first discusses how several components--emotional, visceral (physical) and kisceral (intuitive) are utilized in an argumentative setting by people everyday. These components, also characterized as "modes," are vital to argumentative communication because they affect both the argument and the resulting outcome. In addition to the components/modes, this book also stresses the goals in argumentation as a means for understanding one's own and one's opposer's positions. Gilbert argues that by viewing positions as complex human events involving a variety of communicative modes, we are better able to find commonalities across positions, and, therefore, move from conflict to resolution. By focusing on agreement and shared goals in all modes, arguers can coalesce diverse positions and more easily distinguish between minor or unrelated differences and core disagreements. This permits much greater latitude for locating shared beliefs, values, and attitudes that will lead to conflict resolution.

Here we have, for the first time in a single volume, diverse perspectives on the meaning, conditions, and goals of critical reasoning in contemporary culture. Part One emphasizes critical reasoning and education, engaging the debate over the connection between critical reasoning skills and the learning of the content. Part Two offers analyses of the theoretical, methodological, and historical debates concerning critical reasoning abilities. The authors represent a variety of disciplines and theoretical approaches which lend the book valuable intellectual pluralism. The book evaluates other aspects of critical thinking such as creativity, insight, questioning, learning, practical thought, interpretation, intellectual prejudice, and the historical and temporary aspects of thought.

This book analyses the straw man fallacy and its deployment in philosophical reasoning. While commonly invoked in both academic dialogue and public discourse, it has not until now received the attention it deserves as a rhetorical device. Scott Aikin and John Casey propose that straw manning essentially consists in expressing distorted representations of one's critical interlocutor. To this end, the straw man comprises three dialectical forms, and not only the one that is usually suggested: the straw man, the weak man and the hollow man. Moreover, they demonstrate that straw manning is unique among fallacies as it has no particular logical form in itself, because it is an instance of inappropriate meta-argument, or argument about arguments. They discuss the importance of the onlooking audience to the successful deployment of the straw man, reasoning that the existence of an audience complicates the dialectical boundaries of argument. Providing a lively, provocative and thorough analysis of the straw man fallacy, this book will appeal to postgraduates and researchers alike, working in a range of fields including fallacies, rhetoric, argumentation theory and informal logic.

This volume contains 12 papers addressed to researchers and advanced students in informal logic and related fields, such as argumentation, formal logic, and communications. Among the issues discussed are attempts to rethink the nature of argument and of inference, the role of dialectical context, and the standards for evaluating inferences, and to shed light on the interfaces between informal logic and argumentation theory, rhetoric, formal logic and cognitive psychology.